9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Issuance of process under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. Compliance with Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 3. Alleged false statement in the verification statement. 4. Judicial duty of the Magistrate in recording verification statements. Detailed Analysis: 1. Issuance of Process under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: The petitions challenge the issuance of process by the Magistrate under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act without invoking Section 141. The petitioners argued that the process should have been issued under Section 138 read with Section 141, as they were directors of the company. The court noted that Section 141 does not create an offence but deems persons responsible for the conduct of the company's business guilty of the offence under Section 138. The court held that if the Magistrate is satisfied that a case under Section 141 is made out, he can issue process for the offence punishable under Section 138 against the company and its directors. 2. Compliance with Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: The petitioners contended that the verification statement recorded by the Magistrate was in a pre-conceived format, which did not comply with the requirements of Section 200 of the Code. The court emphasized that the examination of the complainant under Section 200 is not an empty formality and is intended to ascertain whether there is a prima facie case. The court found that the Magistrate failed to perform his duty under Section 200 by mechanically recording the verification statement in a pre-conceived format, depriving the complainant of the opportunity to disclose material particulars on oath. 3. Alleged False Statement in the Verification Statement: The petitioners alleged that the complainant made a false statement in the verification statement by claiming there was no reply to the statutory notice. The court observed that the petitioners did not provide evidence showing receipt of their reply by the complainant before the complaint was filed. Therefore, this issue was deemed a matter of evidence to be addressed during the trial and not grounds for dismissing the complaint at this stage. 4. Judicial Duty of the Magistrate in Recording Verification Statements: The court highlighted that the Magistrate is obliged to put questions to the complainant to elicit the truth, which requires an application of judicial mind. The Magistrate's duty under Section 200 involves more than filling out a pre-conceived format; it requires ensuring that the complainant provides a true version on oath. The court found that the Magistrate failed to perform this duty, resulting in an erroneous approach. Conclusion: The court quashed the orders of process issued by the Magistrate and the subsequent judgment by the Additional Sessions Judge. The case was remanded to the Magistrate to record the verification statement afresh in accordance with the law. The court directed the Registrar to circulate a copy of the judgment to all Metropolitan Magistrates in Mumbai to ensure compliance with the proper procedure under Section 200 of the Code. The petitions were partly allowed with no orders as to costs.
|
